Wow, it's starting to seem like all of you official Orthodox have suddenly visited Constantinople. Impressive.

Been to Milan too.

Quote

Wasn't there a priest in your jurisdiction who wanted to use plastic spoons for the communion? I remember that well.

Context? Names?.....

Quote

I'm not putting your "bishop" in quotes, though he deserves them.

Until your "bishop X" gets a name, do as you like.

Quote

Funny thing! That's not my problem. You don't care enough to follow the Old Calendar Church of Greece, decrying them as schismatics. Not my issue.

Don't care to follow what the pentacostols are doing either.

Quote

You ALREADY commented on it. However, I would love to see you find that article. I didn't know you read Greek, BTW. Something tells me this will be the last we hear from you on the matter of this article.

Yes, I read Greek, and yes, I'd love to see if I, or anyone, finds the alleged article.

Quote

That didn't stop you from demanding me to ask them from my "Bishop", as you say.

I'm following St. Ignatius on this. You know, the Patriarch ordained by the Apostles for our diocese.

Quote

The difference is that the Church recognized them as such; unlike your "liturgies of St Tikhon and St Gregory". Your Archdiocese did.

in communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church.

Quote

Fair enough. Still, that would be our liturgy, not yours.

We're waiting for the proof of your copyright.

Quote

Those came out of the Tridentine reform too? Wow. You learn something new every day.

Or you don't.

Quote

No you don't. You can read what the Russian Holy Synod said and compare it your history.

Done.

Quote

1. Of course not. There are those united with Rome on the Old Calendar.Fixed quote with edit in original post - Cleveland, GM

And schismatics.

Quote

2. Ecumenism IS the abuse.

Ex cathedra ecclesiae parvae.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 03:49:15 PM by cleveland »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In principle, you are correct, which is part of why I have nothing to do with your Church. However, in practice, they are still keeping up appearances in many parts.

And since you like large letters how come you missed this?

"But it should be noted that an unprecedented action took place between Benedict XVI and Bartholomew on November 30: they exchanged the sign of peace during the divine liturgy. In the past, this gesture between the pope and the patriarch always took place outside of the celebration."

Keeping up appearances. And the conspiracy goes on....

« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 02:26:28 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If the above excerpt is true, then the Great Schism has ended and Orthodox and Catholics have unified on a Hierarchial level and the mission is to sell the unification to the unsuspecting laity. Not sure what the above has to do with Western-Rite Orthodoxy.

If the above excerpt is true, then the Great Schism has ended and Orthodox and Catholics have unified on a Hierarchial level and the mission is to sell the unification to the unsuspecting laity. Not sure what the above has to do with Western-Rite Orthodoxy.

I WAS just ABOUT to get to that. We have an amazing technique here before us; the old bait-and-switch.

My point was that the ritual of the "Liturgy of St Tikhon" (an insult to the memory of the Saint) is so flawed it cannot be fixed with a couple of small points.

This was the same point brought up by the Russian Synod in 1904. It's the same point they are ignoring now.

At this point, the question turned on my jurisdicition. I'd like them to answer my questions without running behind "oh, well he's not from a canonical Church." To the Antiochians ROCOR was non-canonical a decade ago. Now they are. I am tired of having this argument about the EP's involvement in ecumenism nor Antioch's involvement in ecumenism.

From Reply #189 on in this thread, it's been nothing since. And I DOUBT, since none of these men have responded to what I *have* written about the "Liturgy", that it will be about anything else. This cheap excuse is all you have, gentlemen, and a cheap excuse it remains.

P.S. My Archbishop is Archbishop John of New York and New Jersey. Please ask him who is in the diptychs. Thank you.

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

Thus liturgy has gotten named after the saint in the 1970's, he has nothing to do with it. For starters this liturgy denies the ever virginity of Mary simply refering to her as 'Blessed Mary".

Bull. She is blessed, is she not? This simply does not refer to her ever-virginity, one way or another. The East had a sort of "liturgical reaction" to many things that were challenged there that weren't ever challenged in the West (the divinity of Christ, icons, the ever-virginity of Mary). Consequently our eastern liturgies stress those theological points much more often and much more explicitly than the Roman and British rites ever have ("Christ our God," for example, is said over and over in our liturgies while it's not a phrase of like prominence in the western liturgies -- surely you're not saying that they therefore deny the divinity of Christ, are you??).

It was also a service meant for those that deny the real Prescense, and even with the Orthodox interpolations and added epiklesis, this aspect of denying the actual body and blood still comes through.

More bull. Prove it. Christ Himself told us to do this "in memory" of Him, but we know memory to be more participatory than a simple memorial meal. It seems you want there to be some low-church, non-sacramental meaning in the WR liturgies' phraseology so that you can reject it outright, but you have no cause to do so legitimately.

"We beseech thee also so to direct and dispose the hearts of ALL CHRISTIAN RULERS, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice and to the maintenance of thy TRUE RELIGION. Give grace o heavenly Father to all bishops and OTHER ministers... ( WRV has interpolated the names of the patriarch and bishop after the phrase, "OTHER MINISTERS"). Even before this verse the reference to "Universal Church' taken in context (which i havent quoted), is intended for those that understand the church as part of the branch theory. From an Orthodox pov this prayer is very awkward.

Quote the context. "Other ministers" could be priests, deacons, bishops, etc. "Universal Church" may have been "intended" for certain groups several hundred years ago, but now it means "the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church": the Orthodox Church. We've taken something and confessed it with the correct meaning behind it. Not a problem now.

Later on in the Prayer of Thanksgiving, it says this: "...And that we are very members INCORPORATE in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people...." (these branch theorists dont even want to use the word 'baptised into' and substitute 'incorporate', regardless we can see the theological errors which alludes to the branch theory in this phrase)

If we've been baptized into Christ, we've been incorporated into His body, become members of it (Eph. 4:25; 5:30). You're grasping at straws and semantics, sir. Your case is very shaky. Our faith is not based on a one-to-one word/definition equivalent. Your treating it as though it were is almost insulting to anyone who can say the same thing with different words.

This liturgy (if it can be called that) is not theologically correct nor is it pre-schism...

You've offered no substantial evidence as to it's theological incorrectness. As to it's being pre-schism, well, you're right; it was understood from the start to be an adaptation of the 1928 BCP. St. Tikhon knew this. It was never an attempt to use the Sarum Rite.

I will insert this here, though: As much as I support the AWRV (and I'm a reader in the OCA), I would prefer to see the use of the Sarum Rite, as I think it is naturally more compatible with the pre-schism British use. I think the ROCOR has the better idea. That having been said, though, I don't think the AWRV is wrong, heretical, heterodox or anything else for using the Rite of St. Tikhon, just that they're using something that isn't as "home grown" as Sarum is. St. Tikhon's Mass was compiled, largely, outside our communion, but it's not something I'm uncomfortable in the slightest with praying, theologically or liturgically speaking.

The denial is here...: "....for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious the death and sacrifice, until his coming again".

Please show me the unbiblical and heterodox part of the above. I don't think it's there.

The Eucharist, according to Orthodox Church teaching, is a perpetual sacrifice; somewhat different from the Roman teaching, but far removed from the idea that the Eucharist was a memorial meal. Certainly the text does not outright say that; it would have permanently cemented the divisions between the Anglicans as to whether they believed in the real presence.

Glad you can at least admit what I boldfaced. As to the Orthodox teaching, Christ was offered once for all, period. Christ is not eternally or perpetually sacrificed. His one sacrifice is made imminently present at every Eucharist, but He is not "being crucified anew" or "still being crucified" when this happens.

In other words, are they saying that these rites are not the Western rites of the old Orthodox West? Or are they saying that they are, even while having to admit the reality? I answer the latter in the affirmative.

You quote Fr. Patrick MacCauley as proving your point, which he does at first, though he later down says that "More precisely, the Western Rite, as approved by the Antiochian Archdiocese is a theologically corrected form of worship formerly used by either the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion." So no, Fr. Patrick is not passing these off as the old rites; he's just not writing precisely.

"At the turn of the ccntury, the only Orthodox bishop in North America, the later Russian Patriarch Tikhon (Belavin) was approached by a group of Episcopalians, who asked to be allowed to continue the use of the American Book of Common Prayer rather than the Byzantine rite. Bishop Tikhon petitioned the Holy Synod of Moscow and a commission of theologians was directed to provide a detailed examination and revision of the Prayer Book to be approved for the converts...."

You emphasize that Fr John Charles Connely says that St. Mark's uses, according to Fr. John, "the finest form of the English Liturgy," but Fr. John is quite clear in saying that that is not a pre-schism liturgy but rather the "1928 Book of Common Prayer, by which we meant the old religion of the Christian West, and its traditional liturgy....." Now, you may disagree (as I do) with his calling it the finest form of the English liturgy, as well as the old religion of the Christian West (I disagree with this in part), but he can hardly be said to be calling this the exact rite used by pre-schism Christians. Rather, he's acknowledging this to be a direct and recognizeable descendant thereof, as you can read HERE.

Its no secret that the WRV has its critics especially amongst the episcopal ranks. The Liturgy of St Tikhon will always recieve the most critcism because its simply not Orthodox, I'm not the first to point this out nor the last.

It will receive criticism because there will (I fear) always be people who squirm at the reality of vast liturgical diversity within the Church from its earliest days. Lectionaries, fasting rules, prayer rules, Eucharists, vestment styles, chant styles, rubrics, etc...all this has varied wildly throughout Christendom; it's only relatively recently that such a liturgical standardization has been the norm. It most certainly is not a sine qua non of genuine Orthodoxy.

The Body of Christ is made of baptised christians, both saints and sinners. It is not the "company of all faithful people" it is an exclusive company of baptized people of whom not all are entirely faithful but some are wretched sinners.

You are aware, are you not, of our Lord's parable of the wheat and the tares? There are wheat grains and there are tares, but though all may be visibly in the "field" of the Church, those who are truly Christ's within His Church are the "faithful people." Some may be baptized, but their hearts are not Christ's. They are not truly of the Body, though they appear so. We all pray that we are one of those who has been incorporated into that Body which will ever be faithful, without spot or blemish, to our Lord in His Church.

Secondly the term "incorporate" is completely false, we are not incorporated into the Body, but through baptism we are the Body.As scripture says, "For by One Spirit we were all baptized into One Body"....(1COR 12.13)

"For as many of you have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."(Gal3.27)

If we've been baptized into Christ, we've been incorporated into His body, become members of it (Eph. 4:25; 5:30). We've been grafted in. Different ways of saying the same thing.

No one denies that the Liturgy of St Tikhon is mainly a product of the influence of Thoman Cranmer -who denied the real prescense. In one of the links, Bishop Kallistos Ware points this out as does another canonical clergy who also rejects this liturgy in its entirety. None of this is new, no matter how much you think it is, most bishops of our Church reject this protestant rite service. My SF, an OCA monk rejects it as does his bishop., as do most in the GOA. You can be in denial all you want and listen to the lies of Antioch that somehow St Tikhon created this liturgy (even though both ROCOR and the OCA reject this assumption).

buzuxi,The only claim you seem to come up with is that the Antiochian WR are using a modified BCP Liturgy called the Liturgy of St. Tikhon. That's not news to us. Please read mine & DavidBryan's answers to your supposed claims that it is heterodox. It is not a heterodox Liturgy.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

buzuxi,The only claim you seem to come up with is that the Antiochian WR are using a modified BCP Liturgy called the Liturgy of St. Tikhon. That's not news to us. Please read mine & DavidBryan's answers to your supposed claims that it is heterodox. It is not a heterodox Liturgy.

Your argumets are wrong, Read the Liturgy in context. This Liturgy defames the name of St Tikhon

I WAS just ABOUT to get to that. We have an amazing technique here before us; the old bait-and-switch.

My point was that the ritual of the "Liturgy of St Tikhon" (an insult to the memory of the Saint) is so flawed it cannot be fixed with a couple of small points.

This was the same point brought up by the Russian Synod in 1904. It's the same point they are ignoring now.

At this point, the question turned on my jurisdicition. I'd like them to answer my questions without running behind "oh, well he's not from a canonical Church." To the Antiochians ROCOR was non-canonical a decade ago. Now they are. I am tired of having this argument about the EP's involvement in ecumenism nor Antioch's involvement in ecumenism.

From Reply #189 on in this thread, it's been nothing since. And I DOUBT, since none of these men have responded to what I *have* written about the "Liturgy", that it will be about anything else. This cheap excuse is all you have, gentlemen, and a cheap excuse it remains.

P.S. My Archbishop is Archbishop John of New York and New Jersey. Please ask him who is in the diptychs. Thank you.

A number of Muslims often say, that I know more about Islam than any Muslim, and can't understand why I'm not. That being said, according to Islamic law, I can not give a decision under the shariah, as I am not Muslim.

How we got into this is you have made a number of claims about heresy, schism, etc...and I've yet to see evidence that the Orthodox should pay any more attention to your opinions on this than we do those under Rome, the Protestants, etc. You seem to forget:

I am in communion with the Orthodox Church, because I am under an Orthodox Bishop. I am not in communion with the EP, or Metropolitan Philip, et cetera. But I don't believe I am outside the Orthodox Church. You do. That's not my problem. It is yours. I believe unconverted Anglicans in the AWRV are outside of the Orthodox Church. That's also not my problem. It is also yours.

And those "long gone" liturgies are already resurrected and being used in "canonical Churches" (except the AWRV). The problem is now that the AWRV no longer wants to use them, preferring the Protestant liturgies instead.

For starters your repeated contention that St. Tikhon had nothing to do with it is belied by the metion of him sending for instruction to the Holy Synod, and sending the observations to him.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"We beseech thee also so to direct and dispose the hearts of ALL CHRISTIAN RULERS, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice and to the maintenance of thy TRUE RELIGION. Give grace o heavenly Father to all bishops and OTHER ministers... ( WRV has interpolated the names of the patriarch and bishop after the phrase, "OTHER MINISTERS"). Even before this verse the reference to "Universal Church' taken in context (which i havent quoted), is intended for those that understand the church as part of the branch theory. From an Orthodox pov this prayer is very awkward.

Later on in the Prayer of Thanksgiving, it says this: "...And that we are very members INCORPORATE in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people...." (these branch theorists dont even want to use the word 'baptised into' and substitute 'incorporate', regardless we can see the theological errors which alludes to the branch theory in this phrase)

In the consecration we see that this liturgy was originally for those that denied the real prescense: "...Who by His own oblation of Himself once offered, made a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in His Holy Gospel command us to continue A PERPETUAL MEMORY OF THAT HIS PRECIOUS DEATH AND SACRIFICE UNTIL HIS COMING AGAIN."

After the words if institution are read they end with the phrase, "in remembrance of me" (as the protestants understand it as seen in the previous quote). The prayer continues: "...According to thy institution of thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants , do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, thy memorial the Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, His mighty ressurection, and glorious ressurection"... (the Orthodox epiclesis added after this).

This liturgy (if it can be called that) is not theologically correct nor is it pre-schism unless the pre-schism Church denied the real prescense of the Eucharist and never used Theotokos or "ever-Virgin or even "Virgin Mary' to describe Christ's mother.

The truth is, it can go eitherway. The Anglicans are a mixed bag. The highchurch interpreted those words differently than the broad & Low church.

Before I became Orthodox I was Anglo-Catholic for a few years and I know how the Anglo-Catholic side viewed the liturgy. I also hung around the Low church and saw how different their interpretation was.

Most....if not all, Anglo-catholics believe in a real presence....some even believe in the Roman Catholic understanding of Trancesubstanciation.

I maybe wrong, but I think Saint Tikhon and the Russians knew about the Low, broad, and highchurch distinctions.

I could be wrong again about what I am about to say, but I think the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon was looking at how the highchurch understood those words............ Not the low and broad wings of Anglicanism........for we all know that their view is far from the pre-schizm perspective.

So what you have to do is look at how the Anglo-Catholics and other high church Anglicans understood those words in the liturgy you are talking about.

However, to your credit, I must admit, that the Anglo-Catholics I know do believe in the branch theory. So I will agree with you about that. That would be a problem. However, one can always give an Orthodox interpretation to those parts.

I could be wrong about this, but I think the Russian Church knew about the branch theory error of Anglicanism, so the corrections they made could of takin that into account. I would like to read the primary works of the Russians that critiqued the BCP. I would like to know what they had to say about the Branch theory and what corrections they made in the BCP to correct it.

I have faith in the corrections they made. We just have to understand the Orthodox edited version with the eyes of the Russian Church. We have to interprete it, the way they(The Russians) did.

JNORM888

« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 06:24:10 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

No one denies that the Liturgy of St Tikhon is mainly a product of the influence of Thoman Cranmer -who denied the real prescense. In one of the links, Bishop Kallistos Ware points this out as does another canonical clergy who also rejects this liturgy in its entirety. None of this is new, no matter how much you think it is, most bishops of our Church reject this protestant rite service. My SF, an OCA monk rejects it as does his bishop., as do most in the GOA. You can be in denial all you want and listen to the lies of Antioch that somehow St Tikhon created this liturgy (even though both ROCOR and the OCA reject this assumption).

Thank you for providing the link where His Emminence Bishop Kallistos Ware briefly shares his views on the historical, liturgical and pastoral aspects of the so-called "Liturgy of St. Tikhon". Truly, various Orthodox liturgies were in use in the West prior to the schism, but the said liturgy was not one of them.

A number of Muslims often say, that I know more about Islam than any Muslim, and can't understand why I'm not. That being said, according to Islamic law, I can not give a decision under the shariah, as I am not Muslim.

How we got into this is you have made a number of claims about heresy, schism, etc...and I've yet to see evidence that the Orthodox should pay any more attention to your opinions on this than we do those under Rome, the Protestants, etc. You seem to forget:

Fair enough. Assume for your amusement that I am another religion. Now answer my claim.

For starters your repeated contention that St. Tikhon had nothing to do with it is belied by the metion of him sending for instruction to the Holy Synod, and sending the observations to him.

BUT HE NEVER ACTED UPON THOSE OBSERVATIONS. The Anglican body was attempting to join corporately as the Orthodox in America without conversion. By the time the Synod's answer came, they had already abandoned the idea.

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

This will be in the running for one of the longest, if not the longest of all, posts I've written. Forgive the length, as it's addressed both to buzuxi and to Suaiden.

Bull. She is blessed, is she not? This simply does not refer to her ever-virginity, one way or another. The East had a sort of "liturgical reaction" to many things that were challenged there that weren't ever challenged in the West (the divinity of Christ, icons, the ever-virginity of Mary). Consequently our eastern liturgies stress those theological points much more often and much more explicitly than the Roman and British rites ever have ("Christ our God," for example, is said over and over in our liturgies while it's not a phrase of like prominence in the western liturgies -- surely you're not saying that they therefore deny the divinity of Christ, are you??)....More bull. Prove it. Christ Himself told us to do this "in memory" of Him, but we know memory to be more participatory than a simple memorial meal. It seems you want there to be some low-church, non-sacramental meaning in the WR liturgies' phraseology so that you can reject it outright, but you have no cause to do so legitimately....Quote the context. "Other ministers" could be priests, deacons, bishops, etc. "Universal Church" may have been "intended" for certain groups several hundred years ago, but now it means "the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church": the Orthodox Church. We've taken something and confessed it with the correct meaning behind it. Not a problem now."

Absolutely not! It is absolutely worse now, which is why the Sarum is superior in this regard.

I am glad, however, you acknowledge that the authors of this rite intended something totally different. THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT THE RUSSIAN SYNOD MADE IN 1904:

The second foundation-stone of the Orthodox Liturgy is represented by the belief in the Eucharist as a sacrifice for the living and the dead. This belief is expressed with indisputable clearness in our Liturgies, both in the proskomide and also especially in the prayer "No one is worthy," which prayer, as the prelude to the whole solemn action of the sacrament, gives the key to the interpretation of the remaining passages, which are perhaps not so clear and definite if each of them is taken separately. We do not see that in the C. P. B. In the American "Oblation" it only says that "We . . . do celebrate and maker here before thy Divine Majesty with these thy Holy Gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial ([Vospominanie]) thy Son hath commanded us to make"; but about the sacrificial significance of this offering and about its saving power for those on whose behalf they offer it, there is not a word said either here or elsewhere in the Communion Service. In the Offertory (sic) one can discern something more similar to our proskomide, for there are found there prayers for the living and also a slight mention of the dead; but all mention of the Gifts is omitted (though they lie on the table ([stol']) at the time), and mention is made only of prayers, donations ([pozhertvovaniyakh']), and alms ([milostin']), if any are collected. It is true, in the American rite immediately after the Invocation there is placed the prayer "And we earnestly desire," in which one can find some sort of allusion ([kamekh']) to prayer for the whole Church; therein they entreat God "mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," But remember that this same prayer is employed in the English edition as the prayer of thanksgiving after Communion and is read after it, one cannot fail to see how vague is the reference to sacrifice in it. This is all the more so, as the term, "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" is applied in the C. P. B. to a general thanksgiving prayer (see, for example, the prayer to be used at sea: O most blessed and glorious Lord God).

They can point us to several ancient Liturgies in which these ideas about the change of the Holy Gifts and about the Sacrifice also are expressed somewhat vaguely. For example (concerning the change) the Gallican Liturgy, the Mozarabic, also the Western Roman ("that it may become to us the Body and Blood of thy well-beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ"), and in particular in the Ethiopic text of the Liturgy in the Apostolic Constitutions (about the change and Sacrifice), for there at the Consecration there is not even so much reference to the Body of Christ as there is in the Communion Service. But (a) the indefinite expressions concerning the consecration of the Gifts which occur in the Roman, Gallican and Mozarabic Liturgies are undoubtedly defined in other passages of these Liturgies; (for example at the Offertory, or at Communion itself, in the phrase "the union (conjunctio) of the Body of Christ;" for the elements themselves are clearly called "the Body of Christ"). (b) All these Liturgies, not excepting the Liturgy of The Apostolic Constitutions, markedly differ from the Communion Service when they speak about the fruits of Communion. If the Gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, then it is evident that the Orthodox in receiving the Mysteries ([tain’]) cannot pray that together with them he may be a partaker also of the Body of Christ; it is already given. He therefore prays at once for the fruits of partaking of the Body and Blood, for sobriety of soul, for forgiveness of sins, for sanctification, and asks that the reception of the Body and Blood may not be to him for judgment or condemnation. We see the same in all the Church’s Liturgies. The C. P. B., however, prays for the partaking of the Body and Blood as for something that should follow upon the reception of the sacrament. In this case the Gifts are not at all the same thing to the communicant as the Body of Christ. It may be impossible to call this a direct negation of the belief in the change, but it is also impossible to call it an undoubted and unequivocal expression of it.

It is impossible also to keep out of sight a fact which in this particular case is of importance. In the ancient Church the question of the Eucharist was not a controversial question; and the Church itself did not raise suspicions against any one on the ground of his Eucharistic beliefs. However, the C. P. B. must be regarded as being at variance with the whole Church on this question, and as belonging to a Church which in its symbolical literature and in its catechism confess a doctrine which is clearly protestant. Considering the origin of the document and the epoch to which it belongs, it must be required to exhibit a definiteness on this question no less than the definiteness which liturgical monuments, hailing from the time of controversies about the Holy Trinity, about the wills in the Person of Jesus Christ, etc., exhibit upon these subjects.

If we've been baptized into Christ, we've been incorporated into His body, become members of it (Eph. 4:25; 5:30). You're grasping at straws and semantics, sir. Your case is very shaky. Our faith is not based on a one-to-one word/definition equivalent. Your treating it as though it were is almost insulting to anyone who can say the same thing with different words.... And now it's for those who don't, those who can understand those (biblical) terms correctly.... I couldn't care less how some protestants understand those words; what I am so grateful for is that my Western Rite brethren understand them correctly."

Do they? Is that why one Antiochian Western Rite writer thought a bunch of Anglican nuns who died fighting cholera at the turn of the century should be glorified as passion bearers?

You've offered no substantial evidence as to it's theological incorrectness. As to it's being pre-schism, well, you're right; it was understood from the start to be an adaptation of the 1928 BCP. St. Tikhon knew this. It was never an attempt to use the Sarum Rite.

But it is being presented as what the Sarum Rite IS: a genuine pre-schism use of Orthodox England.

I will insert this here, though: As much as I support the AWRV (and I'm a reader in the OCA), I would prefer to see the use of the Sarum Rite, as I think it is naturally more compatible with the pre-schism British use. I think the ROCOR has the better idea. That having been said, though, I don't think the AWRV is wrong, heretical, heterodox or anything else for using the Rite of St. Tikhon, just that they're using something that isn't as "home grown" as Sarum is. St. Tikhon's Mass was compiled, largely, outside our communion, but it's not something I'm uncomfortable in the slightest with praying, theologically or liturgically speaking.

So long as you use heretical liturgies and insult the memories of Saints with them I will never support the AWRV.

Glad you can at least admit what I boldfaced. As to the Orthodox teaching, Christ was offered once for all, period. Christ is not eternally or perpetually sacrificed. His one sacrifice is made imminently present at every Eucharist, but He is not "being crucified anew" or "still being crucified" when this happens.

To you. The synod of Russia disagreed with you several times over, as does the synod of the AOAA.

This statement only proves you have marginally skimmed the text. I would suggest you read it. I disagree with nothing in the 1904 text. The AOAA however, refers to that text and says the opposite, such as when Deacon Ben Johnson said (repeatedly) it was a text approving the Book of Common Prayer, which it does not.

It will receive criticism because there will (I fear) always be people who squirm at the reality of vast liturgical diversity within the Church from its earliest days. Lectionaries, fasting rules, prayer rules, Eucharists, vestment styles, chant styles, rubrics, etc...all this has varied wildly throughout Christendom; it's only relatively recently that such a liturgical standardization has been the norm. It most certainly is not a sine qua non of genuine Orthodoxy.

And among heretics, pagans, and shamans. However, we do not adopt the vestments and ideas of heretics, pagans and shamans.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 10:16:09 PM by Suaiden »

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

Thanks for the link. ...I maybe wrong, but I think the Russians knew what they were doing. They spoke with the Anglicans long enough to know it's errors. And I'm sure they knew about the different groups within it...Thus, I have faith in the Russian edited edition, and it should be interpreted the way the Russians understood it....So when reading the Russian edited version, Thomas Cranmer should be ignored.

There is no "Russian edited version" the AWRV is using! And Thomas Cramner was important enough to the Russians to bring it up to them! -- "Moreover, this must be stated not only concerning the ordination of presbyters (sic) but of deacons and bishops also. Such an omission cannot have been accidental, as is shown by the nature of the views respecting the Eucharist held by Archbishop Cranmer, who was the chief leader of the reform and perhaps the author of the rite, and by his most intimate collaborators. The Anglican rite of ordination was so drawn up as to express a view of ordination which did not include in it power to consecrate and offer the bloodless sacrifice."

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

So he submitted a request, the Synod told him in 1904 and in plenty of words just how useless the BCP was for Orthodox worship, the Anglicans who wanted to be recognized as Orthodox realized they'd have to find another patsy like Meletios Metaxakis (who "recognized their orders"), and then St Tikhon went to Russia in 1907 to be martyred by the Soviets a decade later.

So in the 1970's the Anglicans who joined ignored most of the Russian Synod's directives (which can be read) and so this is why it's called the liturgy of St Tikhon.

I guess, comparatively speaking, the "liturgy of St Gregory" (which should be called the "liturgy of Pope Pius V") sounds outright apostolic in origin compared to the facts above.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 10:30:10 PM by Suaiden »

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

Trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't want to because they are preoccupied with 107 monks in Esphigmenou, Mt Athos, who are now surrounded by police and who has already told you they are concerned about that on another thread.

That's belligerent, sir.

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

Trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't want to because they are preoccupied with 107 monks in Esphigmenou, Mt Athos, who are now surrounded by police and who has already told you they are concerned about that on another thread.

That's belligerent, sir.

I didn't ask my question in a hostile manner and you reply as such. You showed PeterTheAleut the same gratitude of answering his question. I wasn't implying anything about your behavior just curious as to what extent you would see someone as acting belligerent.

Trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't want to because they are preoccupied with 107 monks in Esphigmenou, Mt Athos, who are now surrounded by police and who has already told you they are concerned about that on another thread.

That's belligerent, sir.

Then why do you even take the time to post on this thread if you're so concerned with doings on another thread? The good thing about internet discussions such as this is that you can reply on your own time. If you're preoccupied with another situation and you just don't want to continue this discussion for a time, then just don't even visit this thread. No one is forcing you to do so.

Then why do you even take the time to post on this thread if you're so concerned with doings on another thread? The good thing about internet discussions such as this is that you can reply on your own time. If you're preoccupied with another situation and you just don't want to continue this discussion for a time, then just don't even visit this thread. No one is forcing you to do so.

A part of me wants to argue the fact that I am being "chased" on the matter, but I will simply say: yes, you are right. I'll come back to this when the more pressing matter of 600 SWAT police around Esphigmenou is resolved, by God's grace peacefully.

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

Then why do you even take the time to post on this thread if you're so concerned with doings on another thread? The good thing about internet discussions such as this is that you can reply on your own time. If you're preoccupied with another situation and you just don't want to continue this discussion for a time, then just don't even visit this thread. No one is forcing you to do so.

Exactly I said the exact same thing but replying is more important. To show the worry the poster shoudn't reply to any of the posts if it is genuine.

I am not judging your intentions I am just asking why you keep responding to these replies if your response constantly is "I'm more worried about the Monastery situation at the moment" and leaving it at that rather than constantly posting this fact.

I am not judging your intentions I am just asking why you keep responding to these replies if your response constantly is "I'm more worried about the Monastery situation at the moment" and leaving it at that rather than constantly posting this fact.

Why do you feel the need to respond? Do you have the same disease?

Seriously, this is getting stupid. I will not respond further on the matter of my replies (though it sure sounded like you were judging my intentions), I will simply not reply.

Say what you want! I am ok with it.

So far, as I understand, there are no updates. They may occur while I am resting.

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

This doesnt mean he approved of the rite. In fact this Liturgy as used in the AWRV is from the 1928 BCP with a mixture of the Anglican Missa after the death of St Tikhon in 1925. Under St Tikhon a group of american anglicans asked to be recieved into the Orthodox church while retaining their protestant liturgy (not a pre-schism western liturgy of the Orthodox church of the first 1000 years as Antioch claims). While correspondence was going on, this anglican group withdrew their petition after learning how radically different Orthodox was to their beliefs. This group believed Orthodoxy was similar to their own theology much of which is espoused in Zwingli theology. I will demonstrate this:

This Liturgy says," We beseech thee also so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, they they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of the wicked and vice and to thy maintenance of Thy True Religion and virtue. Give grace O Heavenly Father to all bishops and other ministers especially (our N patriarch, Metropolitan, Synod of Antioch).. "

Who are these varied christian rulers who will defend the "true religion" (the Orthodox church)?. In protestantism, the true religion is simply all christian denominations and it doesnt matter what denomination the christian ruler belongs to, its a reference to a branch theory. In the latter part of the prayer the Antiochan heirarchy falls under "other ministers" and not bishops. In Zwingli theology the secular christian rulers held a special place but not the bishops who lead the churches, they were considered corrupt and this notion amongst the anglican worshippers of this service, holds the Antiochan heirarchy as ministers not bishops. Zwingli came up with his "67 conclusions", 67 articles outlining his vision of protestantism. Here are conclusions #34 & 35:,"The spiritual heirarchial power, so called, has no foundation in holy Scriptures and the teaching of Christ. But the secular power of the state is confirmed by the teaching and example of Christ."

The belief about the Eucharist of this service as already stated is that of Zwiglianism, that the Eucharist is a symbolic act and nothing more. This is what this Liturgy prays (as repeated in previous posts), " ....Who by His own oblation of Himself once offered made a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction of the sins of the whole world, and did institute and in His Holy Gospel command us to make a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice until his coming again."

In Zwingli's '67 conclusions' #18 says, "Christ who offered himself once on the cross, is the sufficient and perpetual sacrifice for the sins of all believers. Therefore the mass is no sacrifice, but a commemoration of the one sacrifice of the cross, and a seal of redemption through Christ." Zwingli article #18 is basically whats paraphrased in the above verse of the Liturgy of St Tikhon!

In the other verse of this liturgy which is quintessental protestant ecclesiology, (which i have to revisit again), "... And that we are very members incorporate in thy mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of ALL faithful people..."

These faithful people who are incorporated are those of all denominations regardless of whether they are baptised or not, hence 'ALL'. Zwingly taught that infant baptism was legit but not that baptism is required for salvation or that baptiism is a vehicle of grace. Once again the above verse from the so-called Liturgy of St Tikhon is echoed in the 67 conclusions of Zwingli of which Cranmer was a follower of, in Articles #7 & 8:"Christ is the head of ALL believers who are His Body, but without Him, the body is dead. All who live in this head are His members and children of God. And this is the Church, the communion of saints, the bride of Christ, the Ecclesia catholica. (no, he wasnt thinking of the Orthodox church but of the protestant movement where baptism is not a requirement for entrance into this church)

This verse from this WR liturgy as the others i mentioned, jumped out at me, the first time i read them. (even before i heard of Zwingli) Being an Orthodox christian i knew they were extremely awkward and strange, they are so obvious. I hope now that the cat is out of the bag that Antioch will no longer market this protestant liturgy as a western liturgy of the Orthodox church of the first thousand years. St Photios nor St John of Damascus nor any of the orthodox popes recognize this liturgy. Here is a list of some of the 67 articles of Zwingli theology which the liturgy of St tikhon is indebted to:

Seriously, this is getting stupid. I will not respond further on the matter of my replies (though it sure sounded like you were judging my intentions), I will simply not reply.

You have leveled a charge of heresy which is a serious matter. As is Orthodox Tradition that when someone accuses someone else of heresy they explain in detail why it is heresy or they themselves can face discipline. I would therefore ask that you provide your proof of heretical teachings that exist in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon by Friday, June 6, 2008. If you need more time to put your argument together please PM me and I will be happy to give you an extension.

Also considers this a public warning not to cross post into more then one thread. In each of the two active WR threads you placed an announcement about a monastery on Mt. Athos which violates board policy.

You have leveled a charge of heresy which is a serious matter. As is Orthodox Tradition that when someone accuses someone else of heresy they explain in detail why it is heresy or they themselves can face discipline. I would therefore ask that you provide your proof of heretical teachings that exist in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon by Friday, June 6, 2008. If you need more time to put your argument together please PM me and I will be happy to give you an extension.

Also considers this a public warning not to cross post into more then one thread. In each of the two active WR threads you placed an announcement about a monastery on Mt. Athos which violates board policy.

-ArimetheaLiturgy Section Moderator

Really? Is an internet forum now the Church? Do you have the power to "subject me to canonical discipline"? Of course not. I shall oblige this madness, however, because I am not wrong.

I have asked for someone to point out how I have said the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese is in heresy; I have been accused of it twice, and no one can cite what I said, because I am innocent of the charge. So would this be called a "robber disciplining"?

In the one attempt we've had to demonstrate I said what I didn't, the quote was: "So long as you use heretical liturgies and insult the memories of Saints with them I will never support the AWRV."

This was taken to mean, by extension, the AOCA. That's unfair. I am certainly not the first person to say that the turn the AWRV has taken since the 70's has taken of a heretical bent; there are Bishops of the Greek, ROCOR, and OCA Archdioceses who say the same thing. They have not said the AOCA is heretical. However, my exact statement was "So long as you use heretical liturgies and insult the memories of Saints" -- and to the first I say: (1) I've written in depth on the matter, and I have asked everyone to read the essay I wrote detail the Russian Synod's position on the BCP in 1904. If you'd like, I can show how that has been, wholesale, ignored, although two people pointed out that there is a clear denial of the sacrificial nature of the liturgy. (2) If the Saint had nothing to do with the monstrosity we have now with his name on it, but did his best to defend Orthodoxy until his death, which the liturgy does NOT do (which is why the Russian Synod disapproved of it in general unless major additions were made) then it is an insult to call it HIS liturgy.

I have not said the AOCA are heretics. The best one *can* say is that there are heretics in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, and that the leadership is aware of it (more below).

What I have said is (a) there are unconverted Anglican heretics in the Western Rite Vicariate (b) the "Liturgy of St Tikhon" is neither an Orthodox liturgy nor blessed by St Tikhon and.... we may add what I didn't state is (c) I know many people of the AWRV who AGREE WITH ME.

Now, this has been turned has been turned into me accusing an entire jurisdiction of heresy. No, I'd rather point to some egregious examples of people who support heresy in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate.

We can start with the most obvious, Deacon Ben Johnson, whom for his work in not only attacking the canonical Orthodox rites of the West but promoting heretical post-schism devotions such as the "Sacred Heart of Jesus", the "May Crowning", and flatly defending the Book of Common Prayer (not the "Liturgy of St Tikhon" but the book of common prayer), an Anglican prayer book as Orthodox, inspired my "Western Rite Fraud" site by attacking me and an innocent third party in an email sent throughout the WR community because he couldn't figure out who "Western Rite Critic" was.

I can continue. But I never said what anyone said I said, so it's silly if you still think I am guilty of saying what I didn't say, to defend my point on what I do say.

MINOR EDIT: Allow me to add: I have not accused the AOCA of heresy in my blogs. As far as I am concerned I am doing it a public service, since they should know where there is heresy in their jurisdiction.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 11:48:34 AM by Suaiden »

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

Please...PLEASE...ask ANY Western Rite priest if, when reading these words they read them as Zwingly reads them. It does not, I repeat, does NOT matter how other groups read these words!

Many creedal protestants also read the phrase "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", as do Catholics, yet they understand the idea of this very differently. Are we to stop using that phrase ourselves? Or is it about the understanding of what is being said?

Again, just because Zwingly and others misunderstood Christ's phrase "in memory of Me," we should not therefore stop using the phrase "memory." The Eastern Rite Antiochian prayer book uses the word "merits," but doesn't mean it as the Roman Catholics do.

You say "These faithful people who are incorporated are those of all denominations regardless of whether they are baptised or not," yet offer no explicit text from the liturgy that verifies this. You show that Zwingly uses the same biblical terminology (not a bad thing in and of itself) as the liturgy does, but not that the liturgy must therefore be understood as Zwingly says it.

Eastern Rite Lutherans in the Ukraine use many of our phrases in their altered liturgy; do they automatically get credit for having an Orthodox understanding of what they're praying? I don't think you'd think so, so it does not follow that Christians who've been baptized and chrismated Orthodox, who pray biblical prayers, should be automatically accused of believing something contrary to what their bishops teach about the sacraments and liturgy.

Please...PLEASE...ask ANY Western Rite priest if, when reading these words they read them as Zwingly reads them. It does not, I repeat, does NOT matter how other groups read these words! .... Again, just because Zwingly and others misunderstood Christ's phrase "in memory of Me," we should not therefore stop using the phrase "memory." The Eastern Rite Antiochian prayer book uses the word "merits," but doesn't mean it as the Roman Catholics do.... You say "These faithful people who are incorporated are those of all denominations regardless of whether they are baptised or not," yet offer no explicit text from the liturgy that verifies this. You show that Zwingly uses the same biblical terminology (not a bad thing in and of itself) as the liturgy does, but not that the liturgy must therefore be understood as Zwingly says it....Eastern Rite Lutherans in the Ukraine use many of our phrases in their altered liturgy; do they automatically get credit for having an Orthodox understanding of what they're praying? I don't think you'd think so, so it does not follow that Christians who've been baptized and chrismated Orthodox, who pray biblical prayers, should be automatically accused of believing something contrary to what their bishops teach about the sacraments and liturgy.... They aren't doing this. Stop saying they are.

I believe his name is Zwingli.

More importantly, you are both touching on the cornerstone of the problem. If they are not doing this (and I have shown that some in the leadership imply they do, whether through nostalgic reference or gloss) then there is a far worse problem in front of us.

Those words have never been read by Orthodox Christians, historically (and this is if we assume these churches are Orthodox) until today. There is no living tradition; there is no link to the past except Zwingli, Cranmer, et cetera because these reformers wrote those words with those express intentions. Why didn't you mention Easterners in communion with Rome, who use the exact same words as the Orthodox? But the point is that those are *Orthodox* words, and they try to present themselves as *the Church*.

So the argument that "oh, well, the Orthodox reader means something different" is itself not Orthodox. It is deceptive to those who walk in, out, join and leave these communities, and consequently each of the arguments for being "Eastern" united with Rome on the part of the Western Rite Vicariate is valid. Worse still, some communities who have been received by the AOCA left and joined Anglican churches later! Do you think they genuinely converted to Orthodoxy and then apostatized? I don't. On the flip side, rather than entering more deeply into the Western Orthodox tradition, why have some of the Vicariate's people simply left and become Eastern Rite? Because it's "flowery"? No, I believe people who convert to Orthodoxy are not that superficial. More probable is that these people could not withstand hearing what they knew were texts contrary to the Orthodox faith.

Much of the phrasing in these post-schism liturgies carries a heretical bent, and for an Orthodox Christian to use them makes little sense. An Orthodox Christian, whether Eastern or Western, must use Orthodox terms. (Read: use the Sarum, Mozarabic, or other pre-schism Rite....) The closest one "gets" to Orthodoxy in Anglicanism is the Anglo-Catholic movement, still far removed from simple Orthodox faith (and even many of those people preferred the Sarum rite!)

So why defend the BCP? Instead of defending these words, knowing there are undoubted Orthodox texts in the Western Orthodox tradition, why not use them instead? Any Orthodox confronted with the choice would know what to do. And that why that bothers so many Orthodox can only be answered in the worst ways.

Please do not use the word again in any other threads (other than the one linked above). - Cleveland, Global Moderator

Since I figure this error is not purposeful (i.e. you may not have seen the previous warning), you're only going to be "warned" for 3 days. Please don't use the word anymore, unless you're participating in the thread that specifically is discussing the appropriateness of using that word.

Thank you for your understanding.

- Cleveland, GM

« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 03:28:07 PM by cleveland »

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

Really? Is an internet forum now the Church? Do you have the power to "subject me to canonical discipline"? Of course not. I shall oblige this madness, however, because I am not wrong.

I have asked for someone to point out how I have said the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese is in heresy; I have been accused of it twice, and no one can cite what I said, because I am innocent of the charge. So would this be called a "robber disciplining"?

In the one attempt we've had to demonstrate I said what I didn't, the quote was: "So long as you use heretical liturgies and insult the memories of Saints with them I will never support the AWRV."

Please re-read my post. I never indicate whom you have accused of heresy, rather that you have leveled the charge. PLEASE INDICATE HOW THE LITURGIES USED BY THE AWRV ARE HERETICAL LITURGIES.

As for discipline, we, as the moderators of OrthodoxChristianity.net, have levels of actions that can be taken towards posters. You have already reached "Warned" for your continued use of the word "Uniate" and there are other levels that can be administrated to you that would include having your post reviewed before posting and up to a complete banning from the system.

Since I figure this error is not purposeful (i.e. you may not have seen the previous warning), you're only going to be "warned" for 3 days. Please don't use the word anymore, unless you're participating in the thread that specifically is discussing the appropriateness of using that word.

Thank you for your understanding.

- Cleveland, GM

[/quote]

You changed my post? You realize you mangled the English of the second use? You are correct in that I missed that prohibition, but it's a stupid prohibition!

Do you know what the title of the Balamaand Statement is? What if someone wanted to post the text of this statement? Would they have to change it???

I used to be a "Greek-Catholic" many years ago. And some people in our own parish used the "forbidden term". I am in awe. So many people historically used this term, you'd have to re-edit them and sink them down the memory hole.

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

Please re-read my post. I never indicate whom you have accused of heresy, rather that you have leveled the charge. PLEASE INDICATE HOW THE LITURGIES USED BY THE AWRV ARE HERETICAL LITURGIES.-ArimetheaLiturgy Section Moderator

THEY WERE WRITTEN BY HERETICS. PERIOD. Sticking in a couple of Orthodox words does not create an Orthodox liturgy if the base text is itself a made-up text by Protestant heretics.

AND IT IS.

I assume I will be banned for the use of the term "Protestant heretic"?

« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 03:57:09 PM by Suaiden »

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

Since I figure this error is not purposeful (i.e. you may not have seen the previous warning), you're only going to be "warned" for 3 days. Please don't use the word anymore, unless you're participating in the thread that specifically is discussing the appropriateness of using that word.

Thank you for your understanding.

- Cleveland, GM

You changed my post? You realize you mangled the English of the second use? You are correct in that I missed that prohibition, but it's a stupid prohibition!

Do you know what the title of the Balamaand Statement is? What if someone wanted to post the text of this statement? Would they have to change it???

I used to be a "Greek-Catholic" many years ago. And some people in our own parish used the "forbidden term". I am in awe. So many people historically used this term, you'd have to re-edit them and sink them down the memory hole.

Obviously, if you are discussing these terms in their true and historical sense then there is no problem using the term. What is being rejected is using this as a label to counter other members of the forum. As always, this does not imply that the board takes a position itself on these positions; this is merely a request to use civilized terminology in dialog on this forum.

I assume I will be banned for the use of the term "Protestant heretic"?

Probably not - really, why be so mean? They're in heresy. They're in schism, too. But there's better and worse ways of saying that - some ways are genteel without subverting the Truth, and some ways beat people over the head (I'm figuring you like the latter style).

Based on what the deacon said, I don't think I was violating the guidelines, since I used "U-----" as a reference point, not individuals, and the "ism" as a specific policy reference, which changing it to actual people destroyed the point of the sentence.

Probably not - really, why be so mean? They're in heresy. They're in schism, too. But there's better and worse ways of saying that - some ways are genteel without subverting the Truth, and some ways beat people over the head (I'm figuring you like the latter style).

It has been repeatedly asked of me to demonstrate that this liturgy is heretical. The easiest and most obvious proof is that unlike the Tridentine liturgy its origin was completely heretical. There are rare smatterings of post-schism Roman texts, but for the most part the liturgy is often ambivalent and often Protestant, as was clearly delineated by the Russian Synod in 1904. For the umpteenth time I refer the reader to what I wrote on the matter, since I will probably be shouted down by "no they didn't" without more than a sentence of reference to the text or an attack on my jurisdiction.

Altering my text was extremely offensive, and I have never seen this done in a forum. I really regret being here, and I will make a decision as to whether I leave or stay before the pending of my "warned" status. This "western-rite" forum appears to increasingly be a "sales pitch" for the AWRV, and as a man who came to Orthodoxy through the Eastern tradition and returned to his Western roots, his ORTHODOX roots, this is nothing more than watching people get sold a stone for bread.

And no, I don't like bashing people over the head.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 04:56:58 PM by Suaiden »

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

It has been repeatedly asked of me to demonstrate that this liturgy is heretical. The easiest and most obvious proof is that unlike the Tridentine liturgy its origin was completely heretical. There are rare smatterings of post-schism Roman texts, but for the most part the liturgy is often ambivalent and often Protestant, as was clearly delineated by the Russian Synod in 1904. For the umpteenth time I refer the reader to what I wrote on the matter, since I will probably be shouted down by "no they didn't" without more than a sentence of reference to the text or an attack on my jurisdiction.

Btw, the Sarum rite is technically the Sarum use of the Roman rite. It is also not pre-schism, as it took its form under one of the Norman bishops. It also served as the basis of the Book of Common Prayer.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It has been repeatedly asked of me to demonstrate that this liturgy is heretical. The easiest and most obvious proof is that unlike the Tridentine liturgy its origin was completely heretical. There are rare smatterings of post-schism Roman texts, but for the most part the liturgy is often ambivalent and often Protestant, as was clearly delineated by the Russian Synod in 1904. For the umpteenth time I refer the reader to what I wrote on the matter, since I will probably be shouted down by "no they didn't" without more than a sentence of reference to the text or an attack on my jurisdiction.

Actually, our esteemed posters ozgeorge and DavidBryan made a very cogent argument for how the Protestant language in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon lends itself well to redefinition in an Orthodox manner such that the language can be accepted by us Orthodox. I haven't yet seen you provide a good response to their rebuttal except to repeat the same old logic that ozgeorge and DavidBryan already refuted. Can you give us something new that you haven't already posted?

Actually, our esteemed posters ozgeorge and DavidBryan made a very cogent argument for how the Protestant language in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon lends itself well to redefinition in an Orthodox manner such that the language can be accepted by us Orthodox. I haven't yet seen you provide a good response to their rebuttal except to repeat the same old logic that ozgeorge and DavidBryan already refuted. Can you give us something new that you haven't already posted?

Absolutely not. I already answered as to why just the idea of "redefinition" is not Orthodox here.

Btw, the Sarum rite is technically the Sarum use of the Roman rite. It is also not pre-schism, as it took its form under one of the Norman bishops. It also served as the basis of the Book of Common Prayer.

Without getting into the Synod of Cashel and when the schism occurred, a text that was already in use in the 11th century is not really "post-schism". It's during the schism, yes; but the liturgy was never an issue. It was already Roman there before the schism.

The Sarum Rite is certainly not the basis of the BCP, however, except to a degree in the 1549 edition. Every later version of the BCP is heavily modified to reflect reformation thought and practice. The 1928 prayer book upon with the Anglican Liturgy of the AWRV is based is well distanced from any thought of the Sarum Rite.

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"